The Blind (Mis) Leading the Blind

[Anonymous]

aliEnRIK:
Alan ~

Im kinda intrigued and wondered if you could answer a question for me please?

On page 1 I told my own MAIN reason for not being happy with blind testing (Any type)

Talking hifi only now ~ lets say 100 people do a blind test. And the results dont prove a thing (As usualÿ

)

But then the top 5 people who seemingly COULD tell a difference were then tested again and got much higher results (As they were more perceptive say?)

The problem being that true blind test results needÿ RANDOM people to be scientifically valid. But if thats true then results will always be poor as poor old 65 yr old grandma is never going to tell a difference is she

Anyways ~ have you EVER known ANY blind test to be run as I described? a group of people then the TOP group tested again?

ÿ

The very nature of large-sample double-blind tests is they eliminate bias. That includes the 'bias' of those who can spot differences. However, there's also Richard Clark's $10,000 amp challenge to consider (http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/). That's self-selecting, so theoretically one of the best listeners should have won this by now.

Like I said, I'm not disputing the efficacy of the blind-test. I question it's usefulness in context. It may well be that any kind of experimental survey falls flat... but I want to explore the other avenues before coming to that conclusion.ÿ

 

[aliEnRIK]

Andrew Everard:
aliEnRIK:results will always be poor as poor old 65 yr old grandma is never going to tell a difference is she

What on earth makes you think that? (Apart, of course, from ageist prejudice...)

Its a scientific fact that as people get older their hearing becomes less pronounced. Im not trying to be ageist Andrew. I can hear things my father simply cannot at times for example.

HOWEVER ~ there are people who have poor hearing who CAN pick up on various nuances of sound as theyre so highly trained at doing it

My whole point is that some people are simply more perceptive than others.

My apologies if it came over as being ageist as that wasnt really my intentions at all

 

[idc]

Andrew Everard:

aliEnRIK:results will always be poor as poor old 65 yr old grandma is never going to tell a difference is she

What on earth makes you think that? (Apart, of course, from ageist prejudice...)

Exactly, it was my grandmother who got me into hifi in the first place. So Erick, you will have stopped listening to music when you are 65?

With regards to your point of testing the top testees again, the results are likely to be a better than average result, but that does not move the testing process forward as the results could still be flukes. You would need to repeat the tests time and time again to get any meaningful results. Imagine now, your proposal reversed and we want to try and prove a point using the worst testees, I suspect you would cry foul!

 

[aliEnRIK]

Alan Sircom:aliEnRIK:
Alan ~

Im kinda intrigued and wondered if you could answer a question for me please?

On page 1 I told my own MAIN reason for not being happy with blind testing (Any type)

Talking hifi only now ~ lets say 100 people do a blind test. And the results dont prove a thing (As usual

)

But then the top 5 people who seemingly COULD tell a difference were then tested again and got much higher results (As they were more perceptive say?)

The problem being that true blind test results need RANDOM people to be scientifically valid. But if thats true then results will always be poor as poor old 65 yr old grandma is never going to tell a difference is she

Anyways ~ have you EVER known ANY blind test to be run as I described? a group of people then the TOP group tested again?

The very nature of large-sample double-blind tests is they eliminate bias. That includes the 'bias' of those who can spot differences. However, there's also Richard Clark's $10,000 amp challenge to consider (http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/). That's self-selecting, so theoretically one of the best listeners should have won this by now.

Like I said, I'm not disputing the efficacy of the blind-test. I question it's usefulness in context. It may well be that any kind of experimental survey falls flat... but I want to explore the other avenues before coming to that conclusion.

Cheers alan. Thats the main reason why I personally will never trust hifi/av blind tests

That and the fact its some times damn near impossible to tell a change until youve properly heard something over time

And that it takes TIME for equipment to become accustomed to the changes

 

[aliEnRIK]

idc:Andrew Everard:

aliEnRIK:results will always be poor as poor old 65 yr old grandma is never going to tell a difference is she

What on earth makes you think that? (Apart, of course, from ageist prejudice...)

Exactly, it was my grandmother who got me into hifi in the first place. So Erick, you will have stopped listening to music when you are 65?

With regards to your point of testing the top testees again, the results are likely to be a better than average result, but that does not move the testing process forward as the results could still be flukes. You would need to repeat the tests time and time again to get any meaningful results. Imagine now, your proposal reversed and we want to try and prove a point using the worst testees, I suspect you would cry foul!

Yes ~ lets attack ME for being ageist (by accident more than anything)

good call

In answer ~ whos WE when you say WE want to try and prove a point? Whats the POINT that 'WE' are trying to make? And why are you running from my original proposal?

 

[aliEnRIK]

idc:
With regards to your point of testing the top testees again, the results are likely to be a better than average result, but that does not move the testing process forward as the results could still be flukes.

So if anything other than an AVERAGE response (meaning nothing is proved) all others will be called flukes?

So what IS the point of hifi blind tests then?

 

[Andrew Everard]

aliEnRIK:Yes ~ lets attack ME for being ageist (by accident more than anything)

Why not? Ageism is as offensive as any other kind of prejudice. And I fail to see how it's accidental - you made a direct statement.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Andrew Everard:
aliEnRIK:Yes ~ lets attack ME for being ageist (by accident more than anything)

Why not? Ageism is as offensive as any other kind of prejudice. And I fail to see how it's accidental - you made a direct statement.

It was a slip ~ ive been working nights recently and my brain wasnt fully engaged and I was trying to think of someone who might have struggled to tell the difference between cable A and cable B. MY BAD. Im NOT ageist as I have a shed load of friends who are WAY older then me thank you very much.

I think you have a problem with ME more than anything though Andrew

Would you like me to be a good boy and fall in line and never question anything?

Or am I not allowed to voice my opinions on this hifi forum of yours?

Do you not like me questioning HDMI reviews?

Or putting the fact across that simply because some hifi equipment HAS XLR connections doesnt mean for a fact that it itself is BALANCED?

Should I be ONLY talking about 'CLEARER AUDIO' mains cable just because WHF have labelled them as the dogs chods

OR

Am I allowed to put my OWN points across?

 

[Andrew Everard]

Nobody has a personal problem with you. Only with offensive language and attitudes.

I thanked you for your clarification on the XLR issue - where's the problem with that?

And as for your other accusations in your last post, I think we'll just consider that you never made them, shall we?

 

[idc]

Hi Rick. I am really enjoying this debate. I really hope it continues. I know you were using the age comment as an example and not to have a go at the elderly. Lets face it, this forum is not the place for a serious scientific discussion and I have learned to go with the flow and accept cheaky, witty and off topic comments. My comments about blind testing are valid questions and I was using the royal 'we' for which 'I' can be subsituted.

I hope that you never fall into line and that freedom of speach and view point reigns.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Andrew Everard:
Nobody has a personal problem with you. Only with offensive language and attitudes.

I thanked you for your clarification on the XLR issue - where's the problem with that?

And as for your other accusations in your last post, I think we'll just consider that you never made them, shall we?

If this is all true then I again apologise Andrew.

Its the way you have......erm......ill call them 'short and sharp' answers and sometimes your so vague in what you say it does look like you simply dont like....well...whatever it was that was originally said

HDMI cables in particular we ALL know are a major sticking point (im talking worldwide, not just here)

And im pretty sure people have gotten your 'back up' with them on more than one occasion

XLR ~ my bad but Im just pointing out what it does feel like at times

So with that............lets just carry on then eh

 

[Andrew Everard]

aliEnRIK:If this is all true then I again apologise Andrew.

Why should you doubt that it's true?

Indeed, let's carry on - but please consider that your final warning.

 

[aliEnRIK]

idc:
Hi Rick. I am really enjoying this debate. I really hope it continues. I know you were using the age comment as an example and not to have a go at the elderly. Lets face it, this forum is not the place for a serious scientific discussion and I have learned to go with the flow and accept cheaky, witty and off topic comments. My comments about blind testing are valid questions and I was using the royal 'we' for which 'I' can be subsituted.

I hope that you never fall into line and that freedom of speach and view point reigns.

No worries

My main reason for posting this thread originally is because so many of the cable doubters stick RIGIDLY to the blind test rules which as ive proven are doomed to fail due to their very nature.

Yes ~ if you stick group A with a placebo and Group B with a poison in a medicinal blind test then group B all die then we have an answer

Its not that easy with hifi.

Blind tests are no good in hifi simply because they REQUIRE 'random' people. Theyre no good because 'some' people can see better than others and 'some' people can HEAR better than others. Thats fact.

I think it says more about the cable doubters than it does the actual tests though. It would be a VERY hard pill to swallow for some bloke whos been a hifi engineer all his life who swore blind that cables didnt make a jot of difference when its proven beyond a doubt that they do. Its why blind tests will always be a MAJOR sticking point

 

[idc]

Totally agree with you there. It is very frustrating when the cable doubters say you are wrong, especially those in the engineering side and blindly quote blind tests as the be all and end all. There have been times where self professed engineers have posted on the forum and I have asked 'so why can I hear a difference?', but there has been no response.

The article you originally referred to, I originally saw in the Russ Andrews Connected magazine. RA have run into problems with Advertising Standards over some of their claims and have used the article as evidence that they are right to make claims for their products. I have looked but cannot find much about the author and who paid for his work to be carried out (if anyone did) and if it has been sent for verification by publication in another journal. Have you?

 

[aliEnRIK]

idc:
Totally agree with you there. It is very frustrating when the cable doubters say you are wrong, especially those in the engineering side and blindly quote blind tests as the be all and end all. There have been times where self professed engineers have posted on the forum and I have asked 'so why can I hear a difference?', but there has been no response.

Ive had similar responses myself

idc:

The article you originally referred to, I originally saw in the Russ Andrews Connected magazine. RA have run into problems with Advertising Standards over some of their claims and have used the article as evidence that they are right to make claims for their products. I have looked but cannot find much about the author and who paid for his work to be carried out (if anyone did) and if it has been sent for verification by publication in another journal. Have you?

Are you talking about the blind test author or the author of the tests proving that braided cables and conditioners reduce RFI?

 

[idc]

The last Connected magazine had both articles in it. RA hitting back at the doubters!

 

[aliEnRIK]

idc:The last Connected magazine had both articles in it. RA hitting back at the doubters!

Yes ~ I have the same mag

The test results of the braided cables etc were sent to one 'Dr Craig Sawyers' to carry out the review process.

His answer was ~ "What a paper. No-one will be able to say that mains quality, conditioning and cables do not make a difference again. From now on, it is simply a done deal'

As for finding these independent review papers or if theyve been published anywhere ive yet to find out

Im pretty sure it wont be the last we hear of this anyways

Robert Harley ~ who wrote the original 'blind leading the blind' article has also posted an exhaustive paper which he submitted to the "Audio Engineering Society" called The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality.

 

[Anonymous]

aliEnRIK:
idc:The last Connected magazine had both articles in it. RA hitting back at the doubters!

Yes ~ I have the same mag

The test results of the braided cables etc were sent to one 'Dr Craig Sawyers' to carry out the review process.

His answer was ~ "What a paper. No-one will be able to say that mains quality, conditioning and cables do not make a difference again. From now on, it is simply a done deal'

As for finding these independent review papers or if theyve been published anywhere ive yet to find out

Im pretty sure it wont be the last we hear of this anyways

Robert Harley ~ who wrote the original 'blind leading the blind' article has also posted an exhaustive paper which he submitted to the "Audio Engineering Society" called The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality.

You two had better not open any Nigerian emails.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Cyril Mason:aliEnRIK:
idc:The last Connected magazine had both articles in it. RA hitting back at the doubters!

Yes ~ I have the same mag

The test results of the braided cables etc were sent to one 'Dr Craig Sawyers' to carry out the review process.

His answer was ~ "What a paper. No-one will be able to say that mains quality, conditioning and cables do not make a difference again. From now on, it is simply a done deal'

As for finding these independent review papers or if theyve been published anywhere ive yet to find out

Im pretty sure it wont be the last we hear of this anyways

Robert Harley ~ who wrote the original 'blind leading the blind' article has also posted an exhaustive paper which he submitted to the "Audio Engineering Society" called The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality.

You two had better not open any Nigerian emails.

Seeming as I deal with SPAM and PHISHING and viruses etc every day of my life id say its probably YOU whos more likely to fall foul of any dodgy nigerian scams

 

[Anonymous]

idc:It is very frustrating when the cable doubters say you are wrong, especially those in the engineering side and blindly quote blind tests as the be all and end all. There have been times where self professed engineers have posted on the forum and I have asked 'so why can I hear a difference?', but there has been no response.

Why would you expect an engineer to be able to explain why you can hear a difference? If they are doubting engineers then presumably they cannot hear the difference, so why should they be able to explain what they do not perceive? I am not an engineer but I do find it hard to understand how two digital cables performing to specification can produce different results. I don't doubt the sincerity of people who claim to be able to distinguish, and I certainly have no wish to offend anyone by expressing my doubt, but I think the onus should be on someone who believes there is a difference to be able to explain how this could be so.

 

[idc]

It was in the news a few days ago about a retired army chap from Dumfriesshire who lost his house to the Canadian Lottery scam. I mention this because it is a reason as to why the type of debate we have been enjoying often goes ballistic on the forum. There are people who genuiely believe that the whole cable etc industry is one big snake oil rip-off. This whole issue has the broadest range of opinions outside of PC vs CD.

 

[Anonymous]

There are also people who believe that putting pure nitrogen in tyres prevents them deflating. The question is whether they also throw money at cables, conditioners etc.

 

[RodhasGibson]

Hi Rik, Look seeing as you are into the area of IT, That interests me can you explain to me this:- If I decide to upgrade my present Laptop, How do I wipe it Clean? before selling it on. [ie wipe all passwords and personal data etc.] Any good sound advice would be welcome. Thanks Rod.

 

[Anonymous]

Way off topic RodhasGibson, but here are some answers.

 

[aliEnRIK]

RodhasGibson:Hi Rik, Look seeing as you are into the area of IT, That interests me can you explain to me this:- If I decide to upgrade my present Laptop, How do I wipe it Clean? before selling it on. [ie wipe all passwords and personal data etc.] Any good sound advice would be welcome. Thanks Rod.

A touch off topic there Rod. But basically the safest thing to do is use the operating disc to boot from. Run a FULL format and reinstall the operating system